metsmarathon

deathship... where are you...?

ok, i've got the red sox fan in, and i've also got a phillies fan. sorry about that. not sure if my mets fan friend is interested yet.

two questions: do we need exactly 12 teams in the league to be viable? mind if i invite two other players who i think might be interested? one is a mets fan, the other a red sox fan. my other frined, mohawk red flyers, is good for either of the candidate draft dates, but prefers thursday 22 march, as do i.

what's this nonsense about time commitments?

i do have some other people i could try to drag into this thing. 8 seems too few. i feel like we should have 10-12 minimum. also the more we have the less likely this'll just be a one time flash in the pan sort of thing.

we getting any more teams? scheduling wise, i can basically do any night after the first week of march, except the 14th, 20th and 21st. the first week of march, i'm a single parent. the other three days are for volleyball playoffs.

before 7:30 is tough. also the first week of march is out. i'll have a better handle on the remainder of my coming schedule once my volleyball playoff schedule is out, but those games fall midweek, tues/wed/thurs

mind if i invite a buddy of mine into the league? this is right up his alley, and it seems like we might need the help getting a decent number of teams. he's a cards fan, but we shouldn't hold it against him too much.

i keep reading that as greenpoint lunchlad[u:3qa5yrut]L[/u:3qa5yrut]es, and giggle at the absurdity.

that was only a smidge obtuse. in.

i think the point of that is not necessarily to give the boot to your best player, but perhaps your most underpaid player. if you have albert pujols for $1, we're probably gonna vote him off. but if you have him for $100, well, if that's how you wanna spend your cap space, who are we to argue? i like it, especially for the first year as we try to figure things out. besides, maybe we'll all be gentlemanly, and vote for noone, or agree in advance to vote for noone, and if anybody violates it, then we shun them and give 'em the stinkeye.

maybe what we could do is block off an evening early in spring training, see how far we get, and suspend it for a few weeks to pick up the rest of our rosters if the draft takes too long. it runs the risk of not having a full spring's worth of knowledge and scouting and what not on those early rounds, and of having a high pick felled by early injury, but it might make it much more manageable. it also will help with the later rounds as we'll have a better picture of who's on what teams.

i think the auction is tied to the league. while that's a novel concept, it would only work with either a custom application, or an offline draft.

i imagine hte online auction will hasten things up a tad... maybe not a whole lot, i guess, but a bit. regardless, i'm willing to give it a try. what the fuck, right?

if people don't want to hang out for the whole thing, so be it, provided it can auto draft. besides, would we really want to waste a second night just to draft those 30 rounds of AA players none of us have ever heard of?

in. any format. each is appealing in its own way. points rewards player goodness over roster strategy, and i waffle on whether thats a good or a bad thing. its less challenging in some ways, but also levels the playing field for those who are not hard-core fantasizers.

ok. i gotcha. you pick the players in the order that you pick the cards out of the pack. i was thinking you rip open the pack, order the players, and go from there. your way is much more evil.

i like it as an alternate league. i worry that it might be very challenging to fill a complete/decent roster with a 36-pack. plus the issue of series one vs. series two. draft order would have to be randomly assigned, and i think that as long as any player challenges could be met with a photo of all the cards in the pack, we'd be fine. i would suggest that the players in your pack who you do not draft are available to you as the year goes on. you may pick up any of those players as a free agent, provided you have their card. the player you drop may only be acquired by another team if they also hold the player's card. and what about if you get a team checklist, or manager card, or what not? can you then pick any player on that team? (i kindof like that idea - a checklist type card would allow you to select anyone listed , but you may only use that card in the last round of the draft). any feature cards like league leaders or all stars which feature multiple players would count as regular cards. (or would they be single use cards? if your card has, say, three guys on it, can you pick up any three or only one of the three?)

looks like it could be an interesting thing to try. i'm certain there'll be a significant benefit to anyone whose ever played a auction draft before, and an even more significant benefit to anyone who won't have a munchkin nipping at their heels all night long. the draft will be like herding cats, i'm sure. but what the heck. i have a title to defend.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why should Reyes have his RankSquared multiplied by 77(wins)? He was on the DL for a good number of those wins. Same for David Wright. And Ike Davis. Especially Ike Davis. because he was the best player on a 77-win team. i suppose it would be easy enough to, instead of this cumbersome rankings process, to settle on our favorite WAR mechanic and just tally up the top 500 or so mets' metly careers based on such WAR metric, and populate our list in that way. i think that loses some of the magic though. overall, i don't understand the point, other than to piss on the rankings project. when the rookie of hte year award voting is tallied, the voters are asked to rank their top 5 rookies. when the mvp award is tallied, the voters are asked to rank their top 10 players. ditto the cy young award. there is no distinction made within the rankings that year for a writer to say, "i have this guy as #1, but he's like three times better than my #2. so his #1 ranking should count more." or "yeah, i have this guy as my top rookie, but the rookie class was so weak that i'm going to leave the top two spots blank. i don't want these guys confused with a young albert pujols." if this were the "BML all-time met rankings", how would you run the list, praytell?

clutchiness has been around for a while. fangraphs tallys it. big surprise: josh thole and bobby parnell - not clutch! well, at least not in 2011. jose reyes, also not terribly clutch. very good, but not clutch. were i smarter i'd figure out a way to equitably incorporate clutchiness into some sort of schaefer voting machine, but i think m.e.t.b.o.t. would feel slighted. the 'bot doesn't look at clutch, per se, but at the outcome of game situations, which is a possibly ungainly hybrid of player productivity and player clutchness. bot the 'bot is looking only at who helped the team win a game, not at who stepped up or laid down relative to their established level of production under the bright glaring lights of intense competition.

such is the nature of any and all ranking projects.

Frayed Knot wrote: metsmarathon wrote: 2011's best met will be 77 points higher than the 2nd best met, who will be 77 points higher than the 3rd best met, etc etc, until you get to the lowest ranked met, who will be have netted 77 points. therefore, the best met will be 30 times better than the 30th met, and will be 30/29 times better than the 2nd best met. the best met in a 77 win year will be worth 77*30=2130. this makes him slightly more better than the 21-point met on a 106 win team; 106*20=2120. Umm, not quite. The rank each player gets is first squared and then multiplied by that season's wins to get his point total The idea being that the difference between the 1st & 10th best player should be treated as much more meaningful than the gap between the 10th & 20th, or between Mr. 20th & Mr. 30th. And if you're wondering who came up with such a dopey suggestion ... go look in the mirror. that's genius! i couldn't recall if my brilliance was laughed at, or implemented. nice to know it was both.

since carlton(72) played for the phillies, his score would very likely be zero, as he would go unranked along with all the other mets. but speaking to the general point... 2011's best met will be 77 points higher than the 2nd best met, who will be 77 points higher than the 3rd best met, etc etc, until you get to the lowest ranked met, who will be have netted 77 points. therefore, the best met will be 30 times better than the 30th met, and will be 30/29 times better than the 2nd best met. the best met in a 77 win year will be worth 77*30=2130. this makes him slightly more better than the 21-point met on a 106 win team; 106*20=2120. assuming the met ranking project scales wins up for partial seasons, a met team that goes 59-97 would be calculated as a 62 win team. its best player would score 1860 points. this places him at the same level of the 6th best met in a 77 win team, or the 14th best met on a 106 win team. this was done, among other reasons, to make for simplified calculations, as well as to award players on better teams. the more win s a team has being related to the import of the season, and the ranking of hte players related to the import of the player. to do it differently, we'd probably just look at WAR totals, and that's a little less fun, and doesn't really strike up as much conversation, does it?

we're just really bad at evaluating defense. while i was going through the players on a quick thumbs up/thumbs down, i completely glossed over his defensive shortcomings. ditto duda. not so much pagan. it's perhaps bitterly unfair. although, perhaps pagan deserves it for his regression from last year.